05-17-2018, 11:38 PM
With acknowledgement to Bill Hamilton and Ken Cannane.
When we are calling for FAA regulations (NZ would be better, they are the FARs cleaned up) here we have IN AUSTRALIA, an example of the wholesale adoption, by numbered reference, of the complete suite of design, certification and manufacturing regulations from US.
This information with minor editing and additions comes from a colleague who was intimately involved in achieving these reforms. Or you can open the CASA rule book and see for yourself.
It was, and is, just as important to the airlines as GA, for example the changes completely transformed the economics of the B767, if we still had the old Australian pre-1998 rules, the B787 (and B777) would not be economically viable on the VH- register.
CASR 23-35 is straight FAR 23-35. Some changes were made to FAR 21 to produce CASR 21, but they were "across the board" benefits also, not just for GA, and the then existing Australia rules for same were swapped out (dumped/repealed) completely. Unfortunately the major update of FAR 21 of 2009 has not been followed up by CASA, and this should be part of the overall reform package.
Therefore it was REVOLUTION, not EVOLUTION.
THE MESSAGE IS: HERE IN AUSTRALIA, is a large scale example of adoption of US aviation rules, with ONLY BENEFITS, and NO SAFETY NEGATIVES.
This should be part of the message in selling FARs, Australia has part done part of it already 20 years ago and it works.
This is not some "leap in the dark", but a proven method of reform and change.
Insofar as the AOPA and AGAA strategy is concerned the PAIN position puts forward a rational plan to reform the regulatory environment for aviation.
The pressure should remain because if the foot comes off the pedal its too easy for Minister McCormack to be swayed by the senior bureaucrats and to go the comfortable cover of Do Nothing Land. To be responsible for major change is not in the DNA of McCormack, if it had been he would have agreed to the minor and thoroughly innocuous changes to the Act as prosposed with Banarby J and Mr. Albanese. He could have got there in a week at most. Months have ground on and the last few GA flyings schools are being put to the torch with a transition to the new and unworkable Part 141 and 142 rules, the expenses will cruel many of the few left. That independent instructors in the US teach 70% of their pilots is of no concern whatever to the impervious CASA.
When we are calling for FAA regulations (NZ would be better, they are the FARs cleaned up) here we have IN AUSTRALIA, an example of the wholesale adoption, by numbered reference, of the complete suite of design, certification and manufacturing regulations from US.
This information with minor editing and additions comes from a colleague who was intimately involved in achieving these reforms. Or you can open the CASA rule book and see for yourself.
It was, and is, just as important to the airlines as GA, for example the changes completely transformed the economics of the B767, if we still had the old Australian pre-1998 rules, the B787 (and B777) would not be economically viable on the VH- register.
CASR 23-35 is straight FAR 23-35. Some changes were made to FAR 21 to produce CASR 21, but they were "across the board" benefits also, not just for GA, and the then existing Australia rules for same were swapped out (dumped/repealed) completely. Unfortunately the major update of FAR 21 of 2009 has not been followed up by CASA, and this should be part of the overall reform package.
Therefore it was REVOLUTION, not EVOLUTION.
THE MESSAGE IS: HERE IN AUSTRALIA, is a large scale example of adoption of US aviation rules, with ONLY BENEFITS, and NO SAFETY NEGATIVES.
This should be part of the message in selling FARs, Australia has part done part of it already 20 years ago and it works.
This is not some "leap in the dark", but a proven method of reform and change.
Insofar as the AOPA and AGAA strategy is concerned the PAIN position puts forward a rational plan to reform the regulatory environment for aviation.
The pressure should remain because if the foot comes off the pedal its too easy for Minister McCormack to be swayed by the senior bureaucrats and to go the comfortable cover of Do Nothing Land. To be responsible for major change is not in the DNA of McCormack, if it had been he would have agreed to the minor and thoroughly innocuous changes to the Act as prosposed with Banarby J and Mr. Albanese. He could have got there in a week at most. Months have ground on and the last few GA flyings schools are being put to the torch with a transition to the new and unworkable Part 141 and 142 rules, the expenses will cruel many of the few left. That independent instructors in the US teach 70% of their pilots is of no concern whatever to the impervious CASA.